Still more Moore

Well...it's now turned into a case of he said/he said. Moore's latest message on his website tells a very different story than what we've been hearing for the past few days. And once again, the accusations about Disney's relationship with Jeb Bush are flying.

According to Moore, one month after the deal was signed with Miramax, Eisner met with Moore's agent (Ari Emanuel) and told him that the film would not be distributed through Disney. (Eisner had not seen any footage, nor had he read the outline of the film.) Eisner told Emanuel that he didn't want to anger Jeb Bush as it would complicate matters with future Disney projects in Florida, and that tax breaks and incentives would be in jeopardy. This is huge, and Disney really should explain themselves.

Moore goes on to say that for the next year six million dollars was pumped into the budget of the film. Eisner never told Miramax to stop production, and Miramax assured Moore that there would be no problem with distribution.

So -- whom do we believe? Disney or Moore? I'm siding with Moore on this one. It would be foolish of him to lie about the Eisner/Emanuel meeting. Eisner's response to a New York Times editorial on the subject is smarmy and unconvincing.

Filmbrain hopes that those that were quick to accuse Moore of staging a publicity stunt might reconsider their position. As for the censorship issue -- once again, if the accusations are true, than Eisner is indeed guilty of censoring the work. Disney claims that they are a "family entertainment company" and that it wouldn't be a good idea to distribute a politically charged work in an election year. As Moore reminds us, they are the owners of WABC radio -- home to such 'non-partisans' as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Read the entire Moore message for more information.

Once again, discussion is welcomed and encouraged.

Comments

[scotty]

Just heard: Bob & Harvey are buying the film from Disney, and plan to release it themselves, through a third-party distributor. I wouldn't be surprised if it were Lion's Gate, which is exactly what happened with Kevin Smith's "Dogma," when Disney refused to let Miramax release it a few years ago.

So, in the end, the film will get released, before the election, with the extra dose of controversy/publicity, and it's unlikely the evil behemoth Disney will see any of the profits--which could be significant, considering Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" was the highest-grossing documentary in history. Pretty damn happy ending, especially if you're Michael Moore.

So, sorry to beat on the same drum, but I just don't see any censorship here. It's pretty clear that Disney is a conservative company, with significant political ties to the right, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're censors. I don't know if I believe Michael Moore's allegations about the Eisner meeting, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, despite my instincts to the contrary. If what he says is true and accurate, Disney is a cowardly and badly run company, in the pocket of the right. Not all that surprising, really, and a perfectly valid reason to avoid their products, if you like.

But censorship? I still say no. But at least we can see Moore's film and discuss it, which is a good thing.